Lexi
Well stated. It beggars belief that so many people think nuclear is a 'viable' option in the face of the evidence before them. How many Fukishimas will it take before people wake up. The risk management factors alone should give one more than just pause for thought.

SM
None of my comments were deliberate falshoods. That figure came straight out of Dr Helen Caldicott's book on why nuclear is not an option. I added the bracketed piece '...depending on who you believe' specifically because I had read other articles/books where different figures were provided. Hardly a falsehood if I am offering that there is some dispute on the longevity of uranium supplies.

What is your agenda or motivation in tossing out so liberally accusations of lying. Continuing along the line of personal attacks in the mistaken belief this strengthen's your own position is a poor strategy and one that only reflects on your own position So be it.

Still no response on issues of environmental impact and waste disposal I see nor about your unfailing faith in governments of all types to handle these responsibilities.

Dear Pelly,

As one scientist stated in the New Scietist magazine,

"Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines
would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to
health care, crop damage and climate damage - we well as
provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power."

As I stated on another thread - I wouldn't worry about what some
people think. They don't do it very often.

Pelican,

What you posted is a clearly a falsehood. Your claim that it was not a deliberate falsehood is based on your claimed ignorance, which based on the tripe in your posts has a strong ring of truth. However, given that you have been exposed to the correct information yet choose to regurgitate this baloney, indicates that you are deliberately ignorant or worse.

If the only source for this lie is HC then you are far from widely read. HC is quoting from a paper published by a post grad chem eng, with no peer review what so ever, which has been published only in green magazines.

Some of the assumptions he uses have been tested against reality and have failed miserably, for example his estimates of energy consumption for lower grade ore at Rossing uranium in Namibia being more than 10x the actual consumption, and more than the power consumption of the entire country including many other mines and cities. This has been widely published and peer reviewed, but conveniently ignored by the environmental movement.

As far as waste disposal is concerned, if you bothered to read my posts, you would have seen my reference to the reprocessed done by France, which leaves only a small fraction of the original material, at a fraction of the radioactivity left for disposal.

Lexi,

The comment was from an article in Scientific American with back of the cigarette box level of calculations. For example the assumption that the USA would happily spend $25 trillion on renewable generation, and probably twice that on distribution over the next 20 years considering that they are in financial trouble with a debt of $14 trillion is unrealistic. This was a what if scenario thought bubble and not a serious proposal written pre Copenhagen assuming that the whole world would move to non fossil fuel generation.

has anyone done an analysis on whether more people die from heat or cold in this world? Opponents of coal and nuclear energy really are hypocrites.

Lexi, you do have to stop reading these lefty propaganda sheets, they are filling your head with nonsense.

SM,

I'm going to have to go back and look into the quote that
I cited earlier. I'm surprised at your take on it as I
remember thinking at the time that it made sense. However
at present I'm very busy and don't have much time to post.
So you'll have to excuse my not responding in greater detail
to you.

Dear Hasbeen,

Love your sense of humour - as always it's delish!